Share this post

Link to post

Eh, personally I am kinda totally over the matching Christmas pajamas nonsense because its nothing more than a ploy by clothing companies to get you to buy expensive bedclothes that you pretty much have to replace every year if you're super hyper about everyone matching.

They were posing for a holiday photo. Wild guess? The kid soiled them, the person taking photos had something else to do, so they did a quick photo in matching pjs and then put the kid in his regular attire. The kid is in a house, not outdoors, and I assume they turned the heat on. Jackson probably didn't freeze to death.

Share this post

Link to post

They were posing for a holiday photo. Wild guess? The kid soiled them, the person taking photos had something else to do, so they did a quick photo in matching pjs and then put the kid in his regular attire. The kid is in a house, not outdoors, and I assume they turned the heat on. Jackson probably didn't freeze to death.

She did say they were soiled, & of course he wasn't freezing to death. It just doesn't look comfortable to me & even if he had some pj's that were a solid color that matched it would've worked fine for the pictures, & would've been cuter, but that's just my opinion.

5

Share this post

Link to post

Anyone see the video post Tori made? I watched literally 2 seconds of Jackson being tickled and laughing, then I had to put my phone down. When I came back to watch the whole thing a few hours later, it was gone. Wonder what kind of drama got stirred up over it for her to take it down. 🤔

I didn't see it. But I immediately thought of how tickling can be a form of torture.

It was for me when I was a kid. Maybe someone else got triggered and said it was mean?? That's all I've got. Again, I didn't see it.

(If I was bigger back then, I would have kicked my older brother in the crotch)

Just me?

Edited December 30, 2018 by ChiCricket

2

Share this post

Link to post

Nope. I had an uncle who tickled me to the point where I would cry because he also held me upside down while doing it. Torture. Then it turned into inappropriate touching as I got older. Tickle me and you’ll get a swift kick in the....

3

Share this post

Link to post

Nope. I had an uncle who tickled me to the point where I would cry because he also held me upside down while doing it. Torture. Then it turned into inappropriate touching as I got older. Tickle me and you’ll get a swift kick in the....

I’m very sorry that happened to you.

Some kids love being tickled, some kids are more affectionate than others- I’m of the opinion of the kid doesn’t like it CUT IT OUT; it’s not funny, necessary for their health/safety/hygenine so WHY do that to them?!!

Share this post

Link to post

t’s not funny, necessary for their health/safety/hygenine so WHY do that to them?!!

I'm feeling philosophical this morning so....

Lets start with the obvious. I'm not talking about people who tickle children as a prelude to sexual abuse because thats really a different beast. We're talking about the parent who tickles their child into a helpless ball because they can.

Why do they do it? Because it makes the toddler laugh, because it was done to them as a child and they don't necessarily perceive it negatively, and because children often shriek "NO NO NO" at things they demonstrably enjoy or will enjoy once they get past the objection.

I know we're currently in an era where "the children should be listened to" and that there's a lot of people who are against making a child participate in something, that if a child balks then the child must be granted the control in the situation. I'm not going to call that ridiculous but I do think there's a middle ground between screaming at a child to participate in something, and letting a child, sometimes a very young child, rule the roost.

Most parents who do this aren't viewing it like "Yay! I get to cause serious health, safety, and hygiene damage to my child and get away with it!!! Woo! A free pass to abuse!" and taking that tone with such parents is why the argument gets divisive. Most parents who tickle their children do it because it's fun, and the child likes it, and *most* parents know to stop if the child starts to appear to be distressed.

But it's an art not a science because small children especially can be rather fussy. You know what I mean, crying and moaning like they're being tortured as they're put down for a nap, or offered a treat, or being hugged. If you're not in the school of child rearing where you believe the child should be granted control in all decisions, then you probably force your child to do a lot of things along with tickling them against their will.

I'm not against this school of thought entirely but there is a point where a child needs to learn they don't always get their way, and realistically, a two year old isn't necessarily capable of making the best decisions.

True story - there was a baptism at my church's services yesterday. The baby being baptized was perfectly fine, but the two year old older brother? Just wasn't happy to be there, and hilariously was shouting "no no NO!" during the part where the family is asked to commit to teaching the baby. Now, did everything stop as the two year old was objecting? Of course not - he's two and has no idea what he's saying no to. The preacher made a joke about how "the church allows for dissent and hopefully Child X will change his mind as he gets older" and ignored it because.... little kids don't know what they are complaining about and often protest when there's absolutely nothing wrong.

That's why parents sometimes push kids too far with tickling. It's hard to know, in an activity that provokes laughter, to judge when a not terribly verbal child is genuinely distressed. I doubt the parents who do this are doing it with any malicious intent and sometimes the parent shaming can be really accusatory.

9

Share this post

Link to post

@Rap541 I think we are agreeing with each other. I do think a decent parent knows when a child is enjoying something versus distress, but some parents (being people to that have their own history and preferences) assume because they love being tickled their child must love it too, and keep tickling the child when they hate it.

I am very old school in the sense I believe children should obey their elders and authority figures (you don’t get to have your way all the time)- but tickling the child just because the adult thinks it’s funny isn’t one of those things.

I don’t think a parent that tickles their child too much is doing such a thing out of malice or some type of control, I just wonder “why”.

Share this post

Link to post

My father would tickle me to tears and I hated it so much. He didn't understand that, and I was too little to have a sit-down discussion about it so I don't think he ever realized how traumatic it was for me. I was a real grouch when anybody started tickling my kids (my dad never did that--he was too old at that point)

Share this post

Link to post

My dad tickled me and my brother all the time. We also wrestled as much as he'd allow. Including elaborate "elbow drops" and plenty of play-by-play given by my dad. Once he tickled me so long I peed my pants and my mom yelled at him. I got cleaned up and went back to the fun. He would also give us whisker rubs on our cheeks and hold us down while letting the dog lick our ears and face, which tickled tremendously. I have nothing but fond memories of all of this and continue the tradition with my own children. My fourteen year old son wrestled me too aggressively and snapped my glasses. I'd say some families are just more physical than others. I would certainly never force my child to engage in physical play and it is very obvious, if you know your child, what they are comfortable with and what they aren't. I would say with a baby I've always disliked tickle torture as they can't give you much for cues while laughing hysterically and it just appears uncomfortable to me.

Share this post

Link to post

Hmm. I wonder if part of what is going on is the issue of Tori going back to work teaching. Wasn't that the plan? She was going to take some time off but eventually go back?

How old is Jackson now?

I would agree but she doesn’t say she’s praying to be a better teacher, etc. I would think she would add that to the list. But maybe she has been asked not to publicize it. Last thing anyone needs is fans showing up.

Share this post

Link to post

“Really difficult things” would be more than going back to work. She could be needing to take care of parents in addition to her kid. She could be having health issues, J could start having growth issues etc. It’s worrying that she’s so vague.

Share this post

Link to post

Google says that they had to take J to the urgent care center while they were at Disneyland. Is that an old story or a new one? Maybe she’s stressed about having to deal with a child that no longer stays where she puts him. Following a toddler around who is easily hurt is stressful.

Share this post

Link to post

Google says that they had to take J to the urgent care center while they were at Disneyland. Is that an old story or a new one? Maybe she’s stressed about having to deal with a child that no longer stays where she puts him. Following a toddler around who is easily hurt is stressful.

Share this post

Link to post

I think in terms of having a baby, that its not about being ashamed of being LP but not wanting a child to suffer as Zach has suffered. There's been multiple surgeries. He's mocked for his looks that he can't help. On a different board I have literally seen people write that they don't believe Tory loves him because of his appearance. However unrealistic I find soccer coaching for an average height kid's career, here's the real reality for Zach - its never going to happen because he's an LP. I mean really, Zach has spent his entire life hearing how Jeremy is better at everything because Jeremy won the genetic lottery. Being LP is not winning a prize and I don't see anyone taking Jeremy to task for not expressing how he wants a child like his parents, is he ashamed of his parents being LP? No - he's just smart enough to know being LP is an added challenge, not a prize.

I'll only speak for myself on my dislike of the Golden Pair. I've always found Jeremy dumb and spoiled, and I have always found the comparison of his "successes" to Zach's "failures" to be unfair. They both barely graduated high school, they both diddled in community college for three years without attaining an associates degree. Jeremy went to a degree mill arts school that has since shut its doors and earned a degree that is not accepted as an accredited degree. Zach diddles around with soccer and lives off the show money. Jeremy diddles around with a camera and lives off the show.

But who gets the pathetic loser edit? The guy who knocked up his wife on accident and who is depicted as genuinely considering moving back in with mom? Or the guy who invested his money into a home and who has a clear idea that parenthood will change his lifestyle?

My dislike of Audrey is that I think she's very fake, and is often arrogant in her attitude. I also think she's determined to make this the Audrey show. Together I dislike Jer and Auj's stiff minded "We're married and people who divorce are quitters! We FIX WHATS BROKE WE DON'T THROW IT AWAY NO MATTER HOW MISERABLE IT IS! DIVORCE IS NEVER AN OPTION!". Particularly when they don't fairly apply their smug condensation evenly... they keep their little bitch mouths shut around Daddy Matt and Daddy Matt never gets the lecture on how he just needs to FIX IT.